Ferguson's Two Faces
- Mormon Scholar's "Spoof" Lives On After His Death

The word "spoof" was apparently coined by a British comedian by
the name of Roberts around the middle of the 19th century. It is defined
as a "hoax, joke, or deception." The following is the story of a man who
felt he had been "spoofed" by the Mormon Church and, by his own
admission, decided to "spoof a little back." Unfortunately, his "spoof'
continued to live on after his death and will probably bring
embarrassment to his family and associates for many years to come.

A TRUE BELIEVER

Thomas Stuart Ferguson was born in "Pocatello, Idaho, on 21 May
1915." (The Messiah in Ancient America, 1987, p. 248) He "received
degrees in political science and law from the University of California
and practiced law in Orinda, California." (Ibid.) Mr. Ferguson also
worked with the F.B.I., but his first love seemed to be trying to prove
the Book of Mormon through the study of Mesoamerican archaeology. In
1983, J. Willard Marriot wrote a letter in which he commented concerning
Ferguson's dedication to establishing an archaeological base for the
Book of Mormon: "'We spent several months together in Mexico looking at
the ruins and studying the Book of Mormon archaeology. I have never
known anyone who was more devoted to that kind of research than was Tom.
I remember when he was with the F.B.I., he would arise at 4:30 or 5:00
AM and read the Book of Mormon and information he could find pertaining
to it'" (Ibid., p. 250) His wife, Ester, recalled that "during their
courtship that she was sometimes piqued by his passion for the Book of
Mormon and once complained to her mother, 'I think I'm going out with
the Book of Mormon.'... Throughout their married life she staunchly
supported her husband's efforts." (p. 250)

On page 251-52 of The Messiah in Ancient America, we read that
"Tom Ferguson first approached the President of Brigham Young
University, Howard S. McDonald, about establishing a Department of
Archaeology.... Tom Ferguson was able to convince officials of BYU of
the benefit to the University of having such a department....

"The new Department of Archaeology (now Anthropology) sponsored
its first field trip in 1948 to western Campeche, a state in
southeastern Mexico.... Tom Ferguson,... participated in that first of
many expeditions..."

Mr. Ferguson devoted a great deal of his life trying to prove
the Book of Mormon by archaeology and was considered by the Mormon
people as a great defender of the faith. He wrote at least three books
on the subject. His book, One Fold and One Shepherd, was recommended
to one of the authors of this work (Jerald) as containing the ultimate
case for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. On the jacket of that
book, we find this information about Ferguson: "Thomas Stuart Ferguson,
47, President of the New World Archaeological Foundation, is a
distinguished student of the earliest high civilizations of the New
World. He, with Dr. A.V. Kidder, dean of Central American
archaeologists, first planned the New World Archaeological Foundation in
1952.... He raised $225,000 for the field work, incorporated the
Foundation (being an attorney), assisted in the initial explorations in
Central America and Mexico and has actively directed the affairs of the
Foundation since its inception."

Thomas Ferguson worked hard to get the Mormon Church interested
in helping with the organization he envisioned. In a letter to Mormon
President David O. McKay, dated Dec. 14, 1951, Ferguson wrote: "If the
anticipated evidences confirming the Book of Mormon are found, worldwide
notice will be given to the restored gospel through the Book of Mormon.
The artifacts will speak eloquently from the dust." (The Messiah in
Ancient America, p. 257) Although church leaders claimed that they were
interested in archaeological studies with regard to the Book of Mormon,
they declined to provide any financial help. On Jan. 12, 1952, Ferguson
wrote again and promised the First Presidency that he would "take an
active part in the Foundation to the end that the Church receives the
full benefit of any discovered evidences relating to the Book of Mormon.
I anticipate that many important artifacts will be discovered confirming
the Book of Mormon." (Ibid., p. 259) Joseph Anderson, secretary to the
First Presidency, responded that "The Brethren feel that it may be that
no discovery will be made which shall establish the historical value of
the Book of Mormon. They incline to feel that the faith now required to
accept the book is a very considerable factor in the faith of the
Restored Gospel, belief in which is the result of faith therein." On
April 9,1953, Ferguson wrote a letter in which he again urged the
Brethren to financially support the organization: "The source of our
income and support for the work can be kept strictly confidential if it
is desired.... the Church cannot afford to let all of the priceless
artifacts of Book of Mormon people fall into other hands. We can make
wonderful use of them in missionary work and in letting all the world
know of the Book of Mormon." (Ibid., p. 263)

On pages 263-66 of the same book we find the following:

"...Ferguson's persistence and persuasiveness paid
off,... Ferguson appealed to his good friend J. Willard Marriott for
assistance. The following day Ferguson had an appointment with
President McKay which Marriott had arranged.... President David O.
McKay listened to Tom Ferguson's proposal and asked the specific
amount he was requesting. Ferguson replied, 'Only about the amount
that it would take to build a chapel.'

"President McKay gave him a penetrating glance. 'We
build $50,000 chapels and $250,000 chapels. Which did you have in
mind? Tom Ferguson promptly replied, 'A $250,000 chapel.' That was the
amount granted, sufficient to underwrite five years' work in a
generous way (1955-1959).... It was during this period that Ferguson
spent approximately half of his working time away from law, devoting
this time to administering the affairs of the NWAF, giving speeches,
studying and writing about the archaeology and history of ancient
America and their relationship to the Book of Mormon."

It was agreed that the New World Archaeology Foundation would
not "discuss direct connections with the Book of Mormon, but rather to
allow the work to stand exclusively on its scholarly merits." (Ibid., p.
276) The church provided financial support for this organization for
many years. It was eventually "attached to and administered through
BYU."

In a paper entitled, "Thomas Stuart Ferguson, 1915-83," Fred W.
Nelson wrote the following: "Thomas Ferguson has either directly or
indirectly influenced thousands of people's thinking on archaeology....
He has had a great influence on professional archaeology through the
Department of Archaeology at Brigham Young University, the Gates
Collection, and the New World Archaeological Foundation.... Ferguson's
legacy in the founding of the Archaeology Department at Brigham Young
University, the obtaining of the Gates Collection, and as founder of the
New World Archaeology Foundation stands as a shining example to us all."
(As cited in The Messiah in Ancient America, pp. 282-83)

From all that we can learn, Thomas Stuart Ferguson was a
dedicated believer in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon at the time
he founded the New World Archaeology Foundation. He really believed that
archaeology would prove the Book of Mormon. In a letter dated April 23,
1952, Mr. Ferguson said the "the archaeological data now available is
entirely inadequate" for testing the Book of Mormon. He predicted,
however, that the "next ten years of excavations in Mexico and Guatemala
should enable us to make the archaeological tests." For a number of years
he was very excited about the progress of the work and seemed certain
that the Book of Mormon would be vindicated soon. In his book, One Fold
And One Shepherd, p. 263, he stated: "The important thing now is to
continue the digging at an accelerated pace in order to find more
inscriptions dating to Book-of-Mormon times. Eventually we should find
decipherable inscriptions... referring to some unique person, place or
event in the Book of Mormon." In 1962 Mr. Ferguson said that "Powerful
evidences sustaining the book are accumulating"

EVIDENCE NOT FOUND

Although many important archaeological discoveries were made,
the evidence he had desired to find to support the Book of Mormon did
not turn up. In response to a letter Hal Hougey wrote in 1972 which
reminded him that he had predicted in 1961 that Book of Mormon cities
would be found within 10 years, Mr. Ferguson sadly wrote: "Ten years
have passed... I sincerely anticipated that Book-of-Mormon cities would
be positively identified within 10 years--and time has proved me wrong
in my anticipation." (Letter dated June 5, 1972)

At first it had all seemed so simple; since the Book of Mormon
told when the Nephites were in Mesoamerica, all one had to do was find
archaeological sites that dated to the period and the Book of Mormon
would be established by the evidence. The fact that archaeological
research failed to provide the confirmation which Mr. Ferguson expected
to find must have weighed very heavily on his mind. The most serious
blow to Ferguson's faith, however, came just after Joseph Smith's Egyptian Papyri were rediscovered in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
This collection, which had been lost for many years, contained the very
papyrus from which Joseph Smith "translated" the Book of Abraham. The
Book of Abraham is published in the Pearl of Great Price, one of the
four standard works of the Mormon Church.

After Mr. Ferguson obtained photographs of the papyrus
fragments, he consulted Professors Lutz and Lesko of the University of
California. Both these Egyptologists agreed that the papyrus Joseph
Smith claimed was the Book of Abraham was in reality the Book of
Breathings, an Egyptian funerary text made for a man by the name of Hor
(Horus). Ferguson learned that this papyrus had nothing at all to do
with the patriarch Abraham or his religion. It was in its entirety a
pagan text filled with the names of Egyptian gods and goddesses.

Thomas Stuart Ferguson was shaken to the core by this discovery.
When the church's noted apologist, Dr. Hugh Nibley, began defending the Book of Abraham, he wrote a letter to another member of the church in
which he stated:

"Nibley's articles on the Book of Abraham aren't worth a
tinker--first, because he is not impartial, being the commissioned
and paid defender of the faith. Second, because he could not, he
dared not, he did not, face the true issue: 'Could Joseph Smith
translate Egyptian?'... By study of the GRAMMAR [Joseph Smith's
Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar], the recovered papyrus, and the
illustrations, it is perfectly obvious that we now have the oringinal
[sic] manuscript material used by Jos. Smith in working up the Book
of Abraham. Prof Klaus Baer of Univ. of Chicago, Prof Lutz of U.C.
(Berkeley), Prof. Lesko (U.C. Berkeley) and Egyptologist Dee Jay
Nelson, all agree that the original manuscript Egyptian text
translates into the Breathing Permit of Hor (Egyptian God).... The
work of the two UC professors was done at my request and is
unpublished. All 4 agree with each other, and without having
conferred or collaborated. (My UC men did not, and still do not, know
that there is any relationship of the manuscript material to the
Mormon Church, Joseph Smith, Book of Abraham-- or whatever....

"Joseph Smith announced, in print (History of the
Church, Vol. Il, page 236), that 'one of the rolls contained the
writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt...' Since
4 scholars, who have established that they can read Egyptian, say that
the manuscripts deal with neither Abraham nor Joseph-- and since the 4
reputable men tell us exactly what the manuscripts do say -- I must
conclude that Joseph Smith had not the remotest skill in things
Egyptian-hieroglyphics. To my surprise, one of the highest of officials
in the Mormon Church agreed with that conclusion when I made that very
statement to him on Dec. 4, 1970--privately in one-to-one
[c]onversation....

"The attempts, including Nibley's, to explain away and
dodge the trap into which Joseph Smith fell when he had the audacity
to translate the Chandler texts, and keep the original Egyptian texts
around, are absurd, in my view....

"My views are not for publication or spreading abroad. I
am like you--maintaining membership because of the many fine things
the Church offers. But facts speak for themselves. I offered the data
available to my Stake Pres. recently and he walked away without
it--saying he didn't want to read it. They can hardly execommunicate
[sic] us when they won't look at the evidence.

"Of course the dodge as to the Book of Abraham must be:
'WE DON'T HAVE THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT FROM WHICH THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM
WAS TRANSLATED. I conclude that we do have it and have translations of
it." (Letter by Thomas Stuart Ferguson, dated March 13, 1971)

VISITS THE TANNERS

The first indication we had that Mr. Ferguson was losing his
faith in Mormonism was just after Joseph Smith's Egyptian Papyri were
rediscovered. In 1968 he wrote us a letter saying that we were "doing a
great thing--getting out some truth on the Book of Abraham." This was a
significant statement since we were presenting evidence that the Book of
Abraham was not a correct translation of the papyri. Later we heard a
rumor that he had given up Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham, but this
hardly prepared us for his visit on December 2, 1970. At that time, Mr.
Ferguson told us frankly that he had not only given up the Book of
Abraham, but that he had come to the conclusion that Joseph Smith was
not a prophet and that Mormonism was not true. Ferguson felt that our
work was important and that it should be subsidized. He told us that he
had spent twenty-five years trying to prove Mormonism, but had finally
come to the conclusion that all his work in this regard had been in
vain. He said that his training in law had taught him how to weigh
evidence and that the case against Joseph Smith was absolutely
devastating and could not be explained away.

Speaking of Joseph Smith's First Vision, Ferguson commented that when Cheesman and Brigham Young University Studies published the strange
accounts of the vision they completely destroyed his faith in it. He
felt that instead of helping the cause, the Mormon scholars had shot the
bird, plucked out all its feathers and left it "dead and naked on the
ground." He referred to Dr. Hugh Nibley's defense of the Book of Abraham
as "nonsense," and told us that just before coming to visit us he had
discussed the Book of Abraham with Hugh B. Brown (Brown served as a
member of the First Presidency under President David O. McKay).
According to Mr. Ferguson, Apostle Brown had also come to the conclusion
that the Book of Abraham was false and was in favor of the church giving
it up. A few years later Hugh B. Brown said he could "not recall" making
the statements Thomas Stuart Ferguson attributed to him. Ferguson,
however, was apparently referring to the same incident in the letter of
March 13, 1971, when he stated: "I must conclude that Joseph Smith had
not the remotest skill in things Egyptian-hieroglyphics. To my surprise
one of the highest officials in the Mormon Church agreed with that
conclusion... privately in one-to-one [c]onversation."

That Ferguson would have discussed the matter with Apostle Brown
seems very likely since earlier in the letter Ferguson noted that he had
received "enlarged photos" of the Joseph Smith Papyri "directly from
Hugh B. Brown." While there is always the possibility that Mr. Ferguson
misunderstood Apostle Brown, we seriously doubt that this could have
been the case. At any rate, when Ferguson visited with us he seemed to
be absolutely convinced that Brown did not believe the Book of Abraham.
He was very stirred up over this matter, and we felt that the
conversation he had with Apostle Brown probably disturbed him to the
point that he decided to make contact with us.

From what we know from other sources, Hugh B. Brown had a very
difficult time accepting the anti-Black doctrine--i.e., the teaching
that Blacks could not hold the Mormon priesthood. Since this doctrine
was chiefly derived from Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham, it is very
possible that Brown acquired serious doubts about the book even before
the papyri were rediscovered. Many people believe that when Brown was
serving in the First Presidency he tried very hard to convince President
David O. McKay to have a revelation which would allow Blacks to receive
the priesthood. When Joseph Fielding Smith became president of the
church in 1970, Hugh B. Brown no longer found himself in the First
Presidency. It was not until 1978 that President Spencer W. Kimball
claimed to receive a revelation which removed the curse off the blacks.
At any rate, we have evidence to show that Thomas Stuart Ferguson
continued to tell the story concerning his conversation with Hugh B.
Brown up until the time of his death.

Ferguson found himself faced with a dilemma, for the Mormon
Church had just given him a large grant ($100,000 or more) to carry on
the archaeological research of the New World Archaeological Foundation.
He felt, however, that this foundation was doing legitimate
archaeological work, and therefore he intended to continue the research.
He realized that the organization he had founded to establish the
authenticity of-the Book of Mormon was now actually disproving the Book
of Mormon by its failure to turn up anything concerning a Christian
culture existing in Mesoamerica prior to the time of Columbus.

One matter which we discussed with Mr. Ferguson was the
possibility that he might write something about his loss of faith in the
Book of Mormon. He was deeply grieved by the fact that he had wasted
twenty-five years of his life trying to prove the Book of Mormon. We
indicated to him, however, that this time would not be wasted if he
would go public with what he had found. He could, in fact, prevent many
others from wasting twenty-five years of their lives trying to prove the
Book of Mormon. He informed us that he had been thinking of writing a
book about the matter and that it would be a real "bombshell."

A few months after Thomas Stuart Ferguson revealed to us that he
had come to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon was a spurious
production, he wrote us a letter in which he said: "I think I will be in
SLC in June--and if so, I'll call on you again. I enjoyed my visit with
you.... I certainly admire you for the battle you are waging--virtually
single handed." (Letter dated March 13,1971) On a number of occasions
when people wrote to him, Mr. Ferguson recommended that they read our
publications on Mormonism.

Unfortunately, Thomas Stewart Ferguson seems to have had a very
difficult time communicating his loss of faith to those he was close to.
He told us, for instance, that he did not dare tell one of his sons the
truth about the Book of Mormon because the shock would cause him too
much emotional trauma. He felt that he may have to put the matter off
until the situation changed. While he no longer believed in the divine
authenticity of the Book of Mormon, he continued to attend the Mormon
Church.

Joseph Smith claimed that Jesus Himself told him that he should
"join none" of the churches which were in existence in his day, for "all
their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors
were all corrupt;..." (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith 2:19) This
false concept has led many Mormons to believe that if the Mormon Church
is not true, there is nowhere else to turn. Consequently, when they lose
faith in Mormonism they are likely to completely lose faith in the idea
of a personal God. Unfortunately, this is what happened to Thomas Stuart
Ferguson. In a letter to James Still, dated Dec. 3, 1979, Mr. Ferguson
frankly stated: "I lost faith in Joseph Smith as one having a pipeline
to deity--and have decided that there has never been a pipeline to
deity--with any man." Since he had many friends and members of his
family in Mormonism and apparently felt comfortable there, he decided to
remain in the church. In the same letter Ferguson stated that he still
attended Mormon meetings, "sing in the choir and enjoy my friendships in
the Church. In my opinion it is the best fraternity that has come to my
attention..." With regard to the origin of the Book of Mormon, Mr.
Ferguson wrote: "...I give Joseph Smith credit as an innovator and as a
smart fellow.... I think that Joseph Smith may have had Ixtlilxochitl
and View of the Hebrews from which to work."

Even before our meeting with Mr. Ferguson in 1970, some Mormon
scholars were beginning to face the truth with regard to Book of Mormon
archaeology. Dee F. Green, who had worked with Ferguson's New World
Archaeological Foundation, was one of the first to openly criticize
"Book of Mormon archaeology." His criticism is very significant because
he was at one time deeply involved in archaeological work at the Mormon
Church's Brigham Young University. In 1958-61 he served as editor of the
University Archaeological Society Newsletter. In his article, published
in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Dee Green made it plain that
archaeological evidence did not prove the Book of Mormon:

"Having spent a considerable portion of the past ten
years functioning as a scientist dealing with New World archaeology,
I find that nothing in so-called Book of Mormon archaeology
materially affects my religious commitment one way or the other, and
I do not see that the archaeological myths so common in our
proselytizing program enhance the process of true conversion....

'The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of
Mormon archaeology exists. Titles on books full of archaeological
half-truths, dilettanti on the peripheries of American archaeology
calling themselves Book of Mormon archaeologists regardless of their
education, and a Department of Archaeology at BYU devoted to the
production of Book of Mormon archaeologists do not insure that Book
of Mormon archaeology really exists. If one is to study Book of
Mormon archaeology, then one must have a corpus of data with which to
deal. We do not. The Book of Mormon is really there so one can have
Book of Mormon studies, and archaeology is really there so one can
study archaeology, but the two are not wed. At least they are not wed
in reality since no Book of Mormon location is known with reference
to modern topography. Biblical archaeology can be studied because we
do know where Jerusalem and Jericho were and are, but we do not know
where Zarahemla and Bountiful (nor any other location for that
matter) were or are. It would seem then that a concentration on
geography should be the first order of business, but we have already
seen that twenty years of such an approach has left us empty-handed."
(Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1969, pp. 76-78)

In 1975 Thomas Stuart Ferguson finally mustered up his courage
and prepared a 29-page paper in response to papers written by Mormon
apologists John Sorenson and Garth Norman. It was entitled, Written
Symposium on Book-of-Mormon Geography: Response of Thomas S. Ferguson to
the Norman & Sorenson Papers. In this response, p. 4, Mr. Ferguson
wrote: 'With all of these great efforts, it cannot be established
factually that anyone, from Joseph Smith to the present day, has put his
finger on a single point of terrain that was a Book-of-Mormon
geographical place. And the hemisphere has been pretty well checked out
by competent people. Thousands of sites have been excavated." Ferguson
pointed out in his paper that the text of the Book of Mormon makes it
very clear that certain items should be found in archaeological
excavations and that these items are not present in the sites proposed.
He noted, for instance, that "Thousands of archaeological holes in the
area proposed have given us not a fragment of evidence of the presence
of the plants mentioned in the Book of Mormon..." (p. 7) On page 29 he
concluded by saying: "I'm afraid that up to this point, I must agree
with Dee Green, who has told us that to date there is no Book-of-Mormon
geography. I, for one, would be happy if Dee were wrong."

"Herewith is a copy of my recent (1975) paper on Book of
Mormon matters.... It was one of several presented in a written
symposium on Book of Mormon geography [sic]. (My thesis is that Book
of Mormon geography involves a lot more than playing with topography
and terrain.) The real implication of the paper is that you can't set
Book of Mormon geography down anywhere--because it is fictional and
will never meet the requirements of the dirt-archeology. I should say
--what is in the ground will never conform to what is in the book."

RESULTS OF SPOOFING

Although he had written a paper criticizing Book of Mormon
archaeology, Thomas Stuart Ferguson felt that it was generally best for
those who doubted the faith to keep their "mouth shut." In a letter
written Feb. 9,1976, he gave this advice:

"...Mormonism is probably the best conceived
myth-fraternity to which one can belong... Joseph Smith tried so hard
he put himself out on a limb with the Book of Abraham, and also with
the Book of Mormon. He can be refuted--but why bother... It would be
like wiping out placebos in medicine, and that would make no sense
when they do lots of good....

"Why not say the right things and keep your membership
in the great fraternity, enjoying the good things you like and
discarding the ones you can't swallow (and keeping your mouth shut)?
Hypocritical? Maybe.... thousands of members have done, and are
doing, what I suggest you consider doing. Silence is golden--etc....
So why try to be heroic and fight the myths--the Mormon one or any
other that does more good than ill?

"Perhaps you and I have been spoofed by Joseph Smith.
Now that we have the inside dope--why not spoof a little back and
stay aboard? Please consider this letter confidential--for obvious
reasons. I want to stay aboard the good ship, Mormonism --for various
reasons that I think valid. First, several of my dearly loved family
members want desperately to believe and do believe it and they each
need it. It does them far more good than harm. Belonging, with my
eyes wide open is actually fun, less expensive than formerly, and no
strain at all.... I never get up and bear testimony... You might give
my suggestions a trial run --and if you find you have to burn all the
bridges between yourselves and the Church, then go ahead and ask for
excommunication. (The day will probably come -- but it is far
off--when the leadership of the Church will change the
excommunication rules and delete as grounds non-belief in the 2 books
mentioned and in Joseph Smith as a prophet etc... but if you wait for
that day, you probably will have died. It is a long way off-- tithing
would drop too much for one thing....

"I recently wrote a paper concerning the big weak spots
in the Book of Mormon, from the archaeological point of view and for
$5 will make a photocopy of it for you if you wish to read it.

"Kindly do not quote this letter and please do not cite
me."

If Mr. Ferguson could have seen the results of the "spoof' he
played on his family, he might have had second thoughts about the wisdom
of such a course. As it turned out, after his death his son, Larry S.
Ferguson, was convinced that his father wanted his book One Fold and
One Shepherd revised and republished to the world. He talked Bruce W.
Warren, of Brigham Young University, into working on the revision, and
in 1987 it was published under the title, The Messiah in Ancient
America. In the Preface, p. xiii, Dr. Warren wrote the following "The
Ferguson family wanted the new book to be a tribute to Thomas Stuart
Ferguson and his abiding testimony of the Book of Mormon and the
divinity of the Messiah, Jesus the Christ." On page xv, Dr. Warren
commented: "Finally, the driving force behind the book was Larry
Ferguson, with the initial financing for the project coming from his
brother, Thomas A. Ferguson." In the Forward, p. xii, Professor Paul R.
Cheesman stated: 'With the recent additions by Dr. Bruce W. Warren, this
book should reinstate Thomas Stuart Ferguson as a source of enrichment
in the fields of study concerning Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon."

Larry Ferguson maintains that his father discussed the revision
of his book before his death. Although we do not really know what Thomas
Stuart Ferguson told his son before his death, it seems impossible to
believe that he would have wanted it reprinted. While it is only a
matter of speculation, it is possible that his son might have asked him
why it was not reprinted and that he might have responded by saying it
needed to be revised. If Thomas Stuart Ferguson had never leveled with
his son concerning his true beliefs about the Book of Mormon, Larry
Ferguson would naturally understand his father's statement to mean that
it needed some changes made to reflect archaeological studies that were
made since it went out of print. The real meaning of such a statement,
of course, would be that it needed to be revised to show that the Book
of Mormon "is fictional... what is in the ground will never conform to
what is in the book." (Letter dated Feb. 2, 1976)

In any case, the new book is seriously flawed because there is
no mention of the fact that Ferguson was a complete unbeliever in the
Book of Mormon during the last 12 or 13 years of his life. Bruce Warren
was undoubtedly aware of Ferguson's 29-page paper criticizing the
Sorenson and Norman papers, but he did not even refer to this important
research in the revised publication. If Ferguson were alive today, he
would undoubtedly be shocked to find his name attached to a book which
contains a map showing "Possible Book of Mormon Locations." The reader
will remember that Ferguson wrote that "there is no Book-of-Mormon
geography."

Thomas Stuart Ferguson's One Fold and One Shepherd, contained
a long list of "cultural elements common to both Bible lands and
Mesoamerica." (pp. 57-72) Mormon archaeologist Dee Green felt that
Ferguson's "list of 298 traits... are at times so generalized that the
list could just as well prove that Book of Mormon people wound up in
Southeast Asia." (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1969, p.
74) Ferguson, of course, later came to conclude that the items that were
mentioned in the Book of Mormon which were not found by archaeologists
far outweighed the cultural parallels. Bruce Warren and Larry Ferguson
seem to have been completely oblivious to Ferguson's change of mind and
have included his long list of cultural parallels in the Messiah in
Ancient America, pp. 214-228.

The fact that Thomas Stuart Ferguson was not forthright with
members of his family with regard to the Book of Mormon has placed them
in a very embarrassing position. They have published a book which will
lead people to the conclusion that he was a true believer. The truth, of
course, is that Ferguson believed that archaeology disproved the Book of
Mormon. The appearance of the revised book with Ferguson's name on it,
has caused scholars to probe into the last years of his life. A great
deal of documentary evidence has been discovered to show that from 1970
until his death in 1983 Mr. Ferguson was secretly undercutting the Book
of Mormon. In fact, just two months before his death he was working on a
project which he felt would show that the Book of Mormon was in reality
a 19th century production. The evidence concerning this matter will
appear in a forthcoming publication.

One of the authors of this newsletter (Jerald) tried to discuss
the these problems with Larry Ferguson on KTALK Radio on April 17, 1988.
Mr. Ferguson would not admit that his father had lost faith in the Book
of Mormon, and when he was presented with evidence, he responded: "If
you want to kick my dead father, go ahead." He maintained that in
"February of '83" his father "kind of pulled me aside... [and] bore his
testimony of the Book of Mormon to me." He also referred to a statement
which he said his father had prepared in "the latter part of 1982." It
also appears in The Messiah in Ancient America, p. 283:

"We have studied the Book of Mormon for 50 years. We can
tell you that it follows only the New Testament as a written witness
to the mission, divinity, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And it
seems to us that there is no message that is needed by man and
mankind more than the message of Christ. Millions of people have come
to accept Jesus as the Messiah because of reading the Book of Mormon
in a quest for truth. The book is the cornerstone of the Mormon
Church.

"The greatest witness to the truthfulness of the Book of
Mormon is the book itself. But many are the external evidences that
support it.

The introduction to this statement reads: "In 1982, the year
before he died, he included a photo and testimony in several copies of
the Books of Mormon that he distributed to non-Mormons." (Ibid.) While
we do not know for certain when this statement was first distributed, on
August 2, 1983, Thomas Stuart Ferguson's widow sent a copy of it to
Jerry Benson. In a letter which accompanied it, she wrote: "Tom was
loyal and faithful to the Church to his death." The wording of the
statement which Mr. Benson received is identical to that reproduced in
the book. Below the statement, however, we find the names "Tom and Ester
Ferguson." These names are not handwritten but appear to have been typed
on the same typewriter used for the statement itself. From this we can
conclude that the statement could have been prepared by either Mr. or
Mrs. Ferguson or they could have worked on it together. While it has the
picture of the Fergusons which was mentioned above, it is undated.

During the radio program mentioned above, Larry Ferguson was
asked about the matter. He replied: "Well, he [Thomas Stuart Ferguson]
wrote it in his own hand. You can ask my mother if you want to." H.
Michael Marquardt did just that in a letter to Mrs. Ester Ferguson. She
did not respond, but asked her son, Thomas A. Ferguson, to handle the
matter. On May 19, 1988, he sent Mr. Marquardt a letter in which he
stated: "The type of information you seek is of a very personal nature,
and in our judgment it would be inappropriate for us to share it with
you. We do not know you nor do we know anything about you. Therefore, we
respectfully decline."

We would prefer to believe that Mrs. Ferguson, who may not have
known the truth about her husband's loss of faith, was the one who
prepared this testimony. If, however, there is any evidence that it came
from her husband and that it was prepared in 1982, it would only show
that he was willing to go to far greater lengths than we had supposed in
playing his double game. The reader will remember that in the letter
dated Feb. 9,1976, Mr. Ferguson commented: "I never get up and bear
testimony..."

On the radio program of April 17, 1988, Larry Ferguson declared:
"...if you ever knew my father, that's one thing he was not was a
hypocrite." Mr. Ferguson now finds himself on the horns of a dilemma. If
he concedes that the testimony he has published did not really come from
his father, he will undermine the book he has spent years in preparing.
If, on the other hand, he establishes that his father really wrote it,
he will certainly have to give up the claim that his father was not "a
hypocrite." The reason for this is that on January 4, 1983, just after
Thomas Stuart Ferguson was supposed to have written the statement, he
acknowledged that he was, in fact, engaged in a project which he felt
would prove that the Book of Mormon was not an ancient document. To
accept the information which Larry Ferguson has put forth would force
one to conclude that his father was a real chameleon, continually
changing colors as he talked with Mormons and non-Mormons.

Whatever the case may be, we cannot help but sympathize with men
like Thomas Stuart Ferguson and B. H. Roberts (see Mormonism -- Shadow or Reality, pp. 96D-96G) who labored for many years to prove the Book of
Mormon true and then found out that their faith was based on erroneous
assumptions. It would have been very difficult for these men to have
made a public statement repudiating the Book of Mormon. They would have
been considered traitors to the church who allowed themselves to come
under the power of the Devil. Nevertheless, when we consider the
consequences of remaining silent, we cannot help but feel that both
these men made a drastic mistake when they failed to stand up for the
truth.

EVIDENCE COMPARED

Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt once boasted: 'This generation have
more than one thousand times the amount of evidence to demonstrate and
forever establish the divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon than
they have in favor of the Bible!" (Orson Pratt's Works, "Evidences of
the Book of Mormon and Bible Compared," p. 64)

We feel that this statement is far from the truth. The only
support for the existence of the gold plates is the testimony of eleven
witnesses, and as we have already shown in Mormonism Shadow or Reality?
pp. 50-63, there are a number of reasons to doubt their statements. A
comparison of the archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon with
the evidence for the Bible clearly shows the weakness of the Mormon
position. This, of course, is not to imply that there are no problems connected with biblical archaeology, or that archaeological evidence
alone can prove the Bible to be divinely inspired. Frank H. H. Roberts,
Jr., of the Smithsonian Institute, commented in a letter written to
Marvin Cowan on Jan. 24, 1963: "Archaeological discoveries in the Near
East have verified some statements in the Bible referring to certain
tribes, places, etc. On the other hand there is no way in which they
could verify the narrative parts of the Bible such as the actions,
words, deeds, etc. of particular individuals." In the same letter he
continued: "There is no evidence whatever of any migration from Israel
to America, and likewise no evidence that pre-Columbian Indians had any
knowledge of Christianity or the Bible."

The noted Mormon apologist Dr. Hugh Nibley frankly admitted that
no ancient inscription mentioning the Nephites has ever been found, and
that "nothing short of an inscription which could be read and roughly
dated would bridge the gap between what might be called a
pre-actualistic archaeology and contact with the realities of Nephite
civilization." (Since Cumorah, p. 243)

When we turn to the Book of Mormon we are unable to
find any evidence at all that the Nephites ever existed. We must agree
with the Mormon archaeologist Dee F. Green whom we have already quoted
as saying: "The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon
archaeology exists.... Biblical archaeology can be studied because we do
know where Jerusalem and Jericho were and are, but we do not know where
Zarahemla and Bountiful (nor any other location for the matter) were or
are."

A SINKING SHIP

In 1973, Michael Coe, one of the best known
authorities on archaeology of the New World, wrote
an article for Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon
Thought. In this article he addressed the issue in a
very forthright manner:

"Mormon archaeologists over the years have almost
unanimously accepted the Book of Mormon as an accurate, historical
account of the New World peoples.... Let me now state uncategorically
that as far as I know there is not one professionally trained
archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific
justification for believing the foregoing to be true, and I would
like to state that there are quite a few Mormon archaeologists who
join this group....

"The bare facts of the matter are that nothing,
absolutely nothing, has even shown up in any New World excavation
which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of
Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating
to the history of early migrants to our hemisphere." (Dialogue: A
Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1973, pp. 41, 42 & 46)

Since many Mormons have spread the rumor that the Smithsonian
Institution uses the Book of Mormon in its archaeological research, the
Institution has found it necessary to publish a statement denying this
claim. In the four-page document we read as follows: "1. The Smithsonian
Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific
guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the
archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book."
(STATEMENT REGARDING THE BOOK OF MORMON, Spring 1986, p. 1)

In the 1972 edition of Mormonism--Shadow or Reality? pp.
102-103, we told about Mr. Ferguson reaching the conclusion that the
Book of Mormon was a spurious work. We noted that Mormon leaders "gave
'large appropriations' to support Thomas Stuart Ferguson's New World
Archaeological Foundation. This organization also failed to find
evidence to prove the Book of Mormon, and the man who organized it,
hoping that it would prove Mormonism, ended up losing his faith in the
Church." When Moody Press reprinted this statement in our condensed
work, The Changing World of Mormonism, Robert and Rosemary Brown tried
to cause trouble by writing a note to our publisher stating that this
was "NOT SO!" Since some of our readers had received letters from Mr.
Ferguson telling of his lose of faith and had given us copies, we were
able to easily convince Moody Press that our statement was correct. The
Browns simply did not know the full story.

At the present time there is a Mormon scholar by the name of
Stan Larson who is "writing a biography of Thomas Stuart Ferguson." He
is very interested in knowing the truth about this embarrassing period
in Ferguson's life and has recently published a appeal in the newsletter
of the Mormon History Association for copies of any letters readers
have which were written by Ferguson during the period 1968-83. If any of
our readers had correspondence with Ferguson during this period and want
to help Mr. Larson, they can mail it to us and we will see that it is
sent to him.